C6 


BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


JUNIUS  TEACTS. 
No.  IX. 


JlTNE,]  PUBLISHED    EVERT  MONTH.  [1844.* 


[ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS 

BY  juwirs. 

Auihor  01  ••Tbe  Crisis  of  the  Country,**  and  other  Tracts  of  1840. 
PmCk  3  c§nis  iingle,  $2  50  cts.  per  100,  or  $20  per  1000. 

Tracts  publishkd 

No.     L  THE  TEST,  or  Partibs  trim  by  niRiR  Acts. 
"      11.  THE  CURRENCY. 
"     III.  THE  TARIFF. 
«     IV.  LIFE  OF  HENRY  CLAY 
"       V.  POLITICAL  ABOLITION 
«     VL  DEMOCRACY. 
"   VII.  LABOR  AND  CAPITAL. 
«  VIIL  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS. 
«    IX.  ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS. 


0:7=*  NOTICE  :— Committees,  Clubs,  and  all  persons  desirous  of  obtaining  these  Tracts, 
*.re  requested  to  send  their  orders,  with  remittances,  to  the  publishers,  Greeley  ^  McElrcUh, 
Ttibmve  Office^  New  York^  who  will  promptly  forward  them  to  any  part  of  the  Union,  as  may 
oe  directed.  Remittances  by  mAi\  post  paid  or  free,  at  the  risk  of  the  proprietor.  Price  for 
any  one  of  the  series,  $2  50  cts.  per  100  copies,  or  $20  per  1000. 

DCP"  Postmasters  are  authorized  by  law  to  make  remittances  under  their  frank. 

■ P 


NEW  YORK: 
PUBLISHED  BY  GREELEY  &  McELRATH, 

TRIBUNE  BUILDINGS,  160  NASSAU  STREET. 

1844. 

•  ■■        — — — —    . r. 

fBntered  acrording  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  vear  1S44,  by  Calvin  Colton,  in  the  Clerk's  office  o^ 
the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  and  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York.] 

Ct^  All  violations  of  copyright  are  forbidden. 
£One  Sheet  Periodical,  Postage  under  100  miles  Ij^  cenU ;  orer  100  miles  a|.] 

129 


2 
ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS. 

§  1.  Mr.   Clay'^s  Position  on  this  Question. 

It  is  defined  in  his  Raleigh  Letter,  of  April  17th,  1844,  addressed  to  the  Editors  of  the  Na- 
tional Intelligencer. 

1.  He  was  opposed  to  the  cession  of  Texas  to  Spain,  in  the  treaty  of  1819. 

"When  the  trc.ily  was  laid  before  the  House  of  Representatives,"  says  Mr.  Clay,  "  being  a  member  of 
that  body,  1  expressed  the  opinion  which  I  then  entertained,  and  still  hold,  that  Texas  was  bacrificed  to  Lbe 
tcqaisition  of  I"  lorida. " 

2.  Mr.  Clay  acknowledges  the  validity  and  bona  fide  obligations  of  the  treaty  of  1819. 

"If,"  he  says  in  the  Raleigh  letter,  "  we  made  too  great  a  sacrifice  in  the  surrender  of  Texas,  we  ought  to 

t&ke  care  not  to  make  loo  great  a  sacrifice  in  the  attempt  tore-acquire  it We  have  fairly  alienated  our 

title  to  Texas  by  solemn  national  compacts,  to  the  fulfilment  of  which  we  stand  bound  by  good  faith  and 
national  honor.  It  is,  therefore,  perfectU  idle  and  ridiculous,  if  not  dishonorable,  to  talk  of  resuming  our 
tHle  to  Texas,  as  if  we  had  never  narted  with  it.  We  can  no  more  do  it,  than  Spain  can  resume  Florida, 
Prance  Louisiana,  or  Great  Britain  the  American  Colonies,  now  composing  a  part  of  the  United  States." 

The  "  national  compacts"  above  alluded  to,  are,  first,  the  treaty  of  1819,  and  next,  all  our 
official  recognitions  of  that  transaction  in  our  intercourse  and  arrangements  with  Mexico  and 
Texas,  based  upon  it,  in  regard  to  boundary,  &c.  Granting  that  the  cession  of  Texas  to 
Spain,  in  1819,  was  unconstitutional,  as  some  think,  as  tee  did  it,  we  cannot  plead  our 
own  laws  to  the  prejudice  of  a  foreign  power,  to  whom  we  have  made  engagements.  How 
could  they  know  1  Besides,  if  we  choose  to  break  the  treaty  by  breaking  our  faith,  on  thi» 
ground,  we  lose  the  Floridas,  our  sole  title  to  which  is  based  on  that  instrument.  It  would 
be  singular  if  a  man  should  plead  as  an  apology  for  violating  a  contract,  that  when  he  made 
it,  he  overlooked  certain  rules  of  action,  which  he  had  prescribed  to  himself!  Is  not  this  the 
principle  involved  in  this  case  1  If  a  man  has  sworn  to  his  own  hurt,  as  a  just  man  he 
must  abide  by  it.  Such  special  pleading  would  be  stamped  by  every  fair  mind  as  dishonest 
in  a  private  individual — in  a  nation,  infamous.  Mr.  Clay  has  always  maintained,  and  still 
maintains,  that,  in  parting  with  Texas,  we  committed  an  error  to  our  own  hurt.  But  to 
seize  upon  it  now,  on  the  ground  of  this  error,  would  be  shameful  violence. 

3.  Mr.  Clay  thinks,  that  our  recognition  of  the  independence  of  Texas,  on  our  own  esta- 
blished, published,  and  well  known  principle  of  acknowledging  the  Government  de  facto 
(actual)  of  any  country,  without  regard  to  other  dejure  claims  (claims  of  right),  does  not  at 
idl  affect  the  relations  of  Mexico  and  Texas,  as  belligerent  parties. 

"Thatn«»gociation,"  says  Mr.  Clay,  "did  not  affect  or  impair  the  rights  of  Mexico,  or  change  the  relatioac 
which  existed  b<;tween  her  and  Texas.  Siio,  on  the  contrary,  has  preserved  all  her  rights,  and  has  continued 
to  assert  them ;  and  so  far  as  I  know,  yet  asserts  her  right  to  reduce  Texas  to  obedience." 

This  position  of  Mr.  Clay  rests  on  matter-of-fact  ground,  and  is  incontestible.  Our  Gov- 
emment  has  proclaimed  to  all  the  world,  that  such  is  our  doctrine,  all  the  world  know  it,  and 
such,  invariably,  has  been  our  practice,  till  Mr.  Tyler  got  up  his  treaty  of  annexation.  There 
is  no  principle  of  our  government  longer  established,  better  known,  or  more  uniformly  main- 
tained. Every  administration,  till  the  present,  has  acted  upon  it.  We  have  never  befort 
sought,  but  always  declined  to  meddle  with  the  controversies  of  foreign  states  and  nations. 
It  is  a  most  delicate  affair,  when,  for  our  own  commercial  advantage,  we  have  acknowledg- 
ed the  independence  of  a  state  that  is  in  controversy  with  a  parent  state  for  national  rights, 
we  go  yet  farther,  while  the  dispute  is  pending,  and  undertake  to  decide  it  by  our  own  arbi- 
trary act,  for  our  own  benefit!  Mr.  Tyler  says,  in  his  message  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, of  June  10th,  "The  Executive  has  dealt  with  Texas  as  a  power  independent  of  all 
others,  both  de  facto  and  dejure."  So  it  would  seem.  But  it  is  the  first  time  in  our  history 
that  our  Government  has  ever  done  a  thing  of  the  kind,  and  not  less  a  violation  of  our  prin- 
ciples, than  a  departure  from  our  practice.  It  is  an  outrage  on  the  customs  and  laws  of 
nations. 

4.  •'Under  these  circumstances."  savs  Mr.  Clay.  "  if  the  govomment  of  the  United  States  were  to  acquire 
Texit,  It  woald  acquire  alona  with  it  all  the  Incumnrancea  which  Texas  is  under,  and  among  them  the  actual 
or  suspended  war  between  Mexico  and  Texas.  Of  that  consequence  there  cannot  be  a  doubt.  Annexation 
and  war  with  Mexico  are  id<'nUcal.  ' 

The  "  suipended  war"  is  the  case  of  a  supposed  armistice,  which  was  proclaimed  by  Presi 
dent  Houston,  June  15th,  18'13.  ''jiU  the  incumbrances  which  Texas  is  under,"  ure,  first,  her 
debts,  asserted  by  her  Commissioner  in  treaty  with  Mr.  Tyler,  to  Ik;  fire  millions  of  dollars, 
but  very  prudently  provided  for  in  said  treaty  to  the  amount  of  ten  miilioris,  since  swelled  to 
twenty-two  milLionx  by  rre<lible  evidence,  and  very  likely  in  the  end  could  not  be  satisfied  with 
fifty  milliona.  All  this  liability,  more  or  less,  is  of  course  incurre<l  by  annexation.  Next,  we 
■hould  incur  all  her  tmity  oblijjations  with  (Jreat  Britain,  France,  Holland,  and  other  pow- 
ers, which  might  be  disagreeable,  and  very  inconvenient.  There  would  be  no  escape  from 
this,  as  is  distinctly  intimated  in  Mr.  Everett's  official  letter  of  the  18th  of  May  to  Mr.  Cal- 
houn, and  is  farther  determined  in  the  advocacy  of  the  treaty  of  annexation,  on  the  authc :  ity 
^  130 


I'^of  Vattel,  that  one  treaty  cannot  vitiate  the  oblig:ation3  of  a  former  treaty.  This  sword  of 
■^  Tyler,  Calhoun,  Walker  &  Co.,  by  which  they  cut  their  way  to  a  hitherto  undiscovered  plat- 
form (we  shall  by  and  by  see  what  it  is),  happens  to  have  two  edges,  and  the  edge  wkich 
they  did  not  see,  may  prove  the  sharpest.  Mr.  Everett  reports  Lord  Aberdeen  to  have  said 
«,in  the  House  of  Lords,  the  17th  of  May,  in  answer  to  a  question  from  Lord  Brougham,  "  that 
-»the  annexation  of  Texas  raised  a  question,  as  he  believed,  new  and  unexampled  in  the  history 
trof  public  law,  which  demanded  and  would  receive  the  earliest  attention  of  her  Majesty's  Go- 
jkjVernment."  Mr.  Everett  inferred,  that  the  point  of  this  question  was  "  the  effect  oi  a  union 
fbetween  two  separate  and  independent  States  on  their  prcuoufi/yexistinjj  relations  with  other 
y bowers."  Loixl  Aberdeen  spoke  with  reserve.  The  tkird  incumbrance  is  that  more  particu- 
,j»rly  specified  in  Mr.  Clay's  letter.  '•  Annexation  and  war  with  Mexico,  are  identical.^*  A 
-i^^ourth  and  contingent  incumbrance  is,  what  may  accrue  from  "  the  previously  existing  rela- 
fiiions  of  Texas  with  other  powers,"  which  may  also  be  war  with  very  formidable  opponents. 
)      5.  Mr.  Clay  thinks,  that  a  war  with  Mexico  is  not  to  be  regarded  with  levity.     He  says, 

>     "I  know  there  are  thoae  who  regard  such  a  war  with  indifference,  and  as  a  trifling  affair,  on  account  of  the 
J  weakness  oJ'  Me.vico,  and  her  inability  to  inllicl  serious  injury  ujiDn  liiis  country.     Bui  1  do  not  look  upon  it 
.thus  hghUy.     1  regiud  all  wiirs  us  great  calaiuit.c:;,  to  be  avoided  iJ'  possible,  and  honorable  peace  as  the  Uru- 
eM  pohcy  of  this  country.    What  the  United  Stales  most  need  arc  union,  peace  and  patience." 

^  As  to  the  weakness  of  Mexico,  as  relied  upon  in  the  project  of  annexation  by  force  of 
ijlffins,  Mr.  Clay  thinks  "it  would  be  more  compatible  with  the  dignity  of  this  nation, and  less 
^dishonorable,"  to  attempt  a  like  enterprise  against  a  strong  than  against  a  weak  power.  In 
.,view  of ''all  the  incumbrances  which  Texas  is  under,"  as  above  noted,  certainly  a  war  with 
■  Mexico  is  not  to  be  lightly  regarded.  Will  Mexico  venture  on  such  a  contest,  relying  upon 
ber  own  strength  \  She  must  be  very  stupid  in  doing  so.  Will  she  not  see  the  tendencies 
of  the  opinion  of  mankind  in  such  a  case,  and  estimate,  not  unadvisedly^  her  chances  of  preying 
.on  our  rich  commerce  by  commissioning  privateers,  and  for  forming  powerful  alliances,  ofien- 
.aive  and  defensive  1    Hence  Mr.  Clay  asks : — 

"Are  we  perfectly  sure  that  we  ahould  be  free  from  injury  In  a  state  of  war  with  Mexico  1  Have  we  any 
security,  that  countless  numbers  of  foreign  vessels,  under  the  authority  and  Hag  of  Mexico,  would  not  prey 
upon  our  defenceless  commerce  in  the  Mexican  Gulf,  on  the  Pacific  ocian,  jmd  on  every  other  sea  and 
ocean  1  What  commerce  on  the  other  hand,  doos  Mexico  offer  as  an  indemnity  for  our  losses,  to  the  gallantry 
and  enterprise  of  our  countrymen  {  This  view  of  the  subject  supposes,  that  the  war  would  be  confined  to 
Ihft  United  States  and  Mexico,  as  the  only  belligerents.  But  have  we  any  guaranty,  that  Mexico  would  obtain 
no  allies  among  the  great  European  powers  ?  Suppose  any  such  power;!,  jealous  of  our  increasing  greatness 
and  disposed  to  check  our  growth  and  cripple  us,  were  to  take  part  in  behalf  of  Mexico  in  the  war,  how  woald 
the  different  belligerents  present  themselves  to  the  world  1  vVe  have  been  seriously  charged  with  an  Inor- 
dinate spirit  of  territorial  aggrandizement,  and  without  admitting  this  portion  of  the  charge,  it  must  be  owned, 
that  we  have  made  vast  acquisitions  of  territory  within  the  last  forty  years.  Suppose  that  Great  Briiain  and 
France,  or  one  of  them,  were  to  take  part  with  Mexico,  and  by  a  ma^iifesto,  were  to  proclaim,  thai  their  ob- 
jects were  to  assist  a  weak  and  helpless  ally,  to  check  the  spirit  of ''ncroachmenf  and  ambition  of  an  already 
overgrown  republic,  seeking  still  farther  acquisitions  of  territory  ;  to  maintain  the  Independence  of  Texaa, 
disconnected  with  the  United  States,  and  to  prevent  the  farther  propagation  of  slavery  from  th"  United  States ; 
what  would  be  the  effect  of  such  allegations  upon  the  judgment  of  an  impartial  and  enlightened  world  7" 

This,  as  cannot  be  denied,  is  a  tremendous  hypothesis,  and  a  tremendous  question,  not 
less  instructive  in  view  of  the  jealous  disposition  of  European  powers  towards  the  United 
States.  It  is  prophecy,  which  needs  no  other  inspiration  than  the  sagacity  of  the  great 
statesman  who  uttered  it.  We  are  at  this  moment  on  the  verge  of  the  most  momentous  war 
of  all  histoiy,  the  responsibility  of  which  will  be  charged  at  our  door. 

6.  The  domestic  aspects  of  the  question,  independent  of  foreign.  Admitting  that  Mexico 
would  give  her  consent, 

"  I  do  not  think,"  says  Mr.  Clay,  "  that  Te.ras  ought  to  be  received  into  the  Uni<n,  as  an  integral  portion  of 
it,  in  decided  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  a  considerable  and  respectable  portion  of  the  confederacy.  .  .  Mr. 
Jefferson  expressed  the  opinion,  and  others  believed,  that  it  never  was  in  the  contemplation  of  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution,  to  add  foreign  territory  to  the  confederacy,  out  o(  which  new  slates  were  to  be  formed." 

'  Mr.  Jefferson  felt  the  importance  of  acquiring  Louisiana,  and  fore-shadowed  in  a  letter  to 
•JLevi  Lincoln,  Aug.  30,  1803,  an  ex  post  facto  amendment  of  the  Constitution,  to  sanction  thm 
;deed,  at  the  end  of  which  he  says — 

"  I  quote  this  for  your  consideration,  obperving,  that  the  less  that  is  said  abnnt  any  Con.stitntional  dilBcaltj, 
the  better,  and  that  it  will  be  desirable  for  Congres.-s  to  do  what  is  necessary,  in  silence. " 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Brackenridge,  Aug.  12.  1803.  he  says : —  ' 

"  The  Constitution  has  made  no  provision  for  our  holding  foreign  territory,  ?ti]l  less  for  Incorporating  fbreifm 
nations  into  our  Union.    It  is  the  case  of  a  guardian,  investing  the  money  of  his  ward  in  purchasinj[>  mn  \m- 

Kortani  adjacent  territory,  and  saying  to  him  when  of  age,  I  did  this  fi>r  your  good  ;  I  pretend  to  no  right  10/ 
ind  you  ;  you  may  disavow  me,  and  I  must  get  out  of  the  scrape  as  I  can.    I  tliought  it  my  duty,"  &c. 


In  a  letter  to  Wm.  C.  Nichols,  Sept.  7,  1803,  he  says  :— 


/{fc 


"  I  am  aware  of  the  f  irce  of  the  observations  you  make  on  the  power  given  by  the  Constitution  to  Con/JjJ^ 
to  admit  new  States  into  the  Union,  without  restraining  the  subject  t<>  the  territory  then  constitnti'- ^^ 
United  States.  But  when  I  consider  that  the  limits  of  the  United  iSiates  are  precisely  fixed  by  the  \,,wthe 
1783,  that  the  Conaliiuiion  exon-ealy  declare-^  iiaelf  to  he  mad-.  f.>r  the  United  Stales.  1  cannot  help  bj/j  ^f  -j^ 
Intentioa  was, only  to  permit  Congresa  to  admit  into  thi  Union  n«w  Status,  which  should  be  form^        ^ 

131 


terrhory,  for  which,  and  under  whoM  mthorltj  alone,  they  were  then  acting.  I  do  not  believe  H  wa«  meant, 
that  Ihey  might  receive  England,  Ireland,  Holland,  &c.,  as  would  be  the  case  on  your  construction.  Our  pecu- 
liar Bfcurity  is  in  the  possession  of  a  wriiien  Constitution.  I  say  the  same  as  to  the  opinion  of  those  who  consider 
the  treaty-making  power  boundless.    If  it  is,  then  we  have  no  Constitution." 

"We  do  not  quote  these  passages  from  Mr.  Jefferson,  to  show,  that,  if  he  was  right  in  this 
opinion,  Texas  could  not  be  annexed.  It  appears  that  Mr.  Jefferson  himself  got  over  this 
difficulty,  in  the  case  of  Louisiana,  by  proposing  an  ex  post  facto  amendment  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  rendering  an  account  to  the  nation  for  the  irregularity.  Nor  do  we  cite  this,  to  put 
Mr.  Clay  on  that  ground.  We  have  no  right  to  put  him  there,  or  elsewhere,  where  he  has 
not  distinctly  taken  up  his  own  position.  Personally,  we  have  another  mode  of  getting  over 
this  difficulty,  viz.,  by  an  act  of  national  sovereignty,  which  the  Constitution  does  not  expressly 
forbid,  and  which  no  party,  or  no  "  considerable  portion  of  the  confederacy,"  objects  to.  Such, 
precisely,  were  the  transactions  which  added  Louisiana  and  Florida  to  the  Union,  and  nobody 
has  ever  objected  to  them  since.  Such  are  many  acts,  on  a  smaller  scale,  some  of  them 
important,  which  are  constantly  being  done  by  this  Government.  Where,  for  example,  is 
the  authority  in  the  Constitution  for  laying  out  the  Congressional  burying-ground,  for  taking 
and  using  the  Smithsonian  legacy,  for  building  an  observatory,  for  erecting  the  magnificent 
public  edifices  at  Washington,  for  setting  up  the  Patent  Office,  which  is  fast  growing  into  a 
Home  Department  of  the  Government,  for  fitting  and  sending  out  the  Exploring  Expedition, 
&c.  &c.  ?  These  and  many  others,  are  all  acts  of  national  sovereignty,  not  expressly  forbidden 
in  the  Constitution,  to  which  no  party,  scarcely  any  body,  objects.  It  is  virtually  legislation 
on  the  no-objection  principle — the  harmonious  exercise  of  national  sovereignty.  We  do  not 
know  that  Mr.  Clay  has  taken  ground  on  this  principle,  in  the  respect  he  feels  obliged  to  rei> 
der  to  "the  wishes  of  any  respectable  and  considerable  portion  of  the  confederacy,"  on  the 
question  of  Annexation ;  but  we  think  he  is  right  in  his  position,  certainly  prudent.  There 
are  grave  doubts  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  measure ;  no  express  authority  can  be  cited-, 
and  who  would  be  warranted,  in  such  a  case,  to  trample  on  "  the  wishes  of  a  considerable 
and  respectable  portion  of  the  Confederacy  ?"  The  majority  cannot  rightfully  put  do\yn  the 
minority,  which  rises  up  and  invokes  the  Constitution  as  a  shield,  demanding  authority  for 
an  act  of  alleged  injustice.  This  is  a  mete,  a  boundary,  over  which  a  fair  man  will  not,  dare 
not,  leap.  The  annexation  of  Texas,  as  now  proposed,  is  a  great,  a  momentous  question, 
sprung  upon  the  country  at  an  unexpected  moment,  with  a  view  to  force  it,  before  it  can  be 
considered,  because  it  is  known  that  "a  considerable  and  respectable  portion  of  the  confede- 
racy" is  not  prepared  for  it,  would  perhaps  oppose  it.  Mr.  Clay,  a  republican  from  the  be- 
ginning, is  manifestly,  though  he  does  not  say  it,  shocked  at  such  a  violation  of  democratic 
principles — at  an  attempt  to  force  upon  the  Union  a  foreign  sovereignty,  without  asking  leave 
of  the  people !  He  proposes,  that  the  people  should  have  time  to  consider  it ;  and  as  it  is  a 
measure  of  doubtful  Constitutionality  with  many,  he  would  feel  bound  to  respect  the  objec- 
tions of  "  a  considerable  and  respectable"  minority.     He  says  :  — 

"I  think  It  far  more  wise  and  important  to  compose  and  harmonise  the  present  Confederacy,  na  it  now  exists, 
than  to  introduce  a  new  element  of  discord  and  distraction  into  it.  In  my  humble  opinion,  it  should  be  the  con- 
stant and  earnest  endeavor  of  Americin  f^talesmeii,  to  eradicate  prejudices,  to  cultivate  and  foster  concord  and  to 
produce  general  cnntentmeni  among  all  pans  of  our  Confederacy.  And  true  wisdom,  it  seems  to  me,  points  to 
the  duty  of  rendering  its  present  munii>ers  happy,  piosperous,  and  sati^sfied  with  each  other,  rather  tlian  to  mtro- 
dttce  alien  members,  against  the  common  consent,  ajid  with  the  certainty  of  deep  dissatisfaction." 

Mr.  Jefferson  proposed  to  take  Louisiana,  "  in  silence^^ — '*  the  less  said  the  better,"  because 
he  knew  the  people  would  be  satisfied.  He  said,  "  we  shall  not  be  disavowed."  It  has 
recently  been  proposed  to  take  Texas,  "  in  silence,"  and  by  stealth,  because  it  was  known,  that 
the  people  would  be  dissatisfied,  and  that  it  could  not  be  done  openly  without  strenuous  op- 
position from  the  most  respectable  quarters. 

7.  In  the  apparent  motive  which  actuates  this  precipitate  movement,  is  developed  an 
alarming  element  of  future  strife  and  disunion  between  opposing  sections  of  the  confederacy. 
Mr.  Clay  says,  "  It  is  useless  to  dispjuise,  that  there  are  those  who  espouse,  and  those  who 
oppose  the  annexation  of  Texas  on  the  ground  of  the  influence  it  would  exert  in  the  balance 
of  political  power,  between  two  great  sections  of  the  Union."  He  thinks,  that  nothing  could 
be  "more  unfortunate,  or  more  pregnant  with  fatal  consequences,"  than  a  struggle  of  this 
kind.  "  If  to-day  Texas  be  required  to  add  strength  to  one  part  of  the  confederacy,  to-morrow 
Canada  may  be  required  to  add  strength  to  the  other,"  and  where  and  in  what  is  such  a  strife 
to  end  1    It  needs  no  prophet's  ken  to  answer.     All  see  the  end  of  it. 

8.  •'  If,"  says  Mr.  Clay,  "  any  F/Uropenn  nation  entertains  any  ambitious  designs  upon  Texas,  such  as  that  of 
colonizing  her,  or  In  any  way  subjujatinn  h<r,  I  Hhould  regard  it  as  the  iniperaiiveduty  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  to  oppose  to  sucli  deAipno  the  most  firm  and  determined  resistance,  to  the  extent,  If  necessary,  of 
appealing  to  arms,  to  prevent  the  accomplishmrnt  of  any  such  designs." 

Well,  we  do  not  see  what  more  the  hottest  annexationist  can  ask  than  this.  The  sole  pre 
^t  assigned  for  the  movement,  so  far  as  appears,  is  this  very  thing,  which,  Mr.  Clay  says, 
^*''d  impose  "  an  imperative  duty  on  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  oppose  it,  if 

***^  wy,  even  by  an  appeal  to  arms."     We  should  then  have  the  public  law  of  nations  on 

132 


our  side.  Any  fowigii  EuTopean  interference  in  the  affairs  of  Texas,  would  be  a  just  occasion 
of  offence  to  us,  and  we  could  never  consent  to  it,  as  it  might  endanger  our  interests,  and  im- 
pair our  political  and  national  rights.  They  who  are  for  immediate  annexation,  cannot  go 
farther  than  this.  Mr.  Clay  declares,  that  he  would  defend  this  right  against  all  the  world. 
and  light  for  it  if  necessary.  To  all  European  nations,  his  language  is — Hands  off  of 
Texas— and  they,  who  know  Mr.  Clay,  will  believe,  that  it  will  not  be  his  fault,  if  they  are 

not  kept  off.     But  these  immediate  annexationists  want  to  fight  before  it  is  necessary before 

it  can  be  done  with  honor — when  it  is  sure  to  incur  the  reprobation  of  mankind — and  when 
it  may  bringdown  upon  us  the  combined  hostility  of  the  most  powerful  nations.  No  man 
would  grasp  the  sword  quicker,  or  with  a  more  resolute  will,  than  Mr.  Clay,  when  a  Euro- 
pean power  should  make  tangible  demonstrations  of  a  meddling  interference  in  the  affairs  of 
Texas.  But,  like  Captain  Tyler,  who  cuts  off  heads  for  the  suspicion  that  the  wearers  are 
"  Clay  men  at  heart"  the  immediate  annexationist  would  fight  all  the  world  on  the  presump- 
tion, that  there  is  somebody  in  it,  who  has  an  evil  thought,  though  he  cannot  tell  who  it  vs. 
We  denzdud  the  evidence. 

"  From  what  I  have  seen  and  hoard,''  says  Mr.  Clay,  "  I  believe,  that  Great  Britain  has  recently,  formally,  and 
■olemnly  disavowed  any  such  aim  or  purposes — has  declnrt'd  that  sh«  is  desirous  only  of  the  independence  of 
Texas,  and  that  she  has  no  intention  to  interfere  in  her  domestic  institutions." 

It  appears,  that  /our  separate  and  distinct  official  disavowals  of  this  kind,  from  Lord  Aber- 
deen himself,  as  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs,  two  through  our  Minister  Mr.  Everett,  and 
two  through  Mr.  Packenham,  British  Minister  at  Washington,  were  in  the  hands  of  our  Go- 
vernment, when  Mr.  Clay  wrote  this  letter — all  communicated  in  the  space  of  three  months. 
They  were  volunteered — gratuitous — altogether  unusual.  They  were  disavowals,  not  only  of 
•^  any  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  to  establish  a  dominant  influence 
in  Texas,  whether  partially  dependant  on  Mexico,  or  entirely  independent,"  or  to  interfere  in 
her  domestic  affairs ;  but  also  of  any  desire  or  design,  "  openly  or  secretly,  to  disturb  the 
internal  tranquillity  of  the  slave-holding  states,  or  to  injure  the  prosperity  of  the  American 
Union."  Even  Thomas  Hart  Benton,  a  right  good  hater  of  the  British,  and  always  suffi- 
ciently jealous  of  them,  was  constrained  to  say  in  the  Senate — "  This  is  enough  for  me. 
That  Government  is  too  proud  to  lie."  It  is  remarkable ,  that  the  British  Government  should 
have  taken  such  special  pains  to  contradict  the  statements  and  correct  the  misrepresenta- 
tions of  a  secret  agent  of  President  Tyler  (supposed  to  be  Mr.  Duff  Green),  on  which  the 
treaty  of  annexation  was  founded;  and  still  more  remarkable,  after  those  aisavowals  were 
made,  that  a  treaty,  based  on  such  a  false  foundation,  should  be  persisted  in,  and  defended  by 
the  veiy  documents  which  contained  the  disavowals!  Not  less  remarkable  is  the  fact, 
that  the  letter  of  our  Secretary  of  State  to  Mr.  Packenham,  finding  reasons  for  the  treaty  in 
the  papers  of  disavowal,  was  dated  six  days  after  the  treaty  was  signed,  thus  evincing  that  this 
letter  was  an  after  thought — an  ex  post  facto  production  !  Most  unfortunate  was  this  British 
Minister,  in  having  his  words,  which  were  designed  for  peace,  thus  perverted  to  kindle  strife. 
What  ]\lr.  Benton  believes  in  this  affair,  we  may  safely  have  some  respect  for. 

9.  Mr.  Clay's  position  on  the  annexation  question,  leaves  it  precisely  where  it  was.  He 
opens  and  shuts  no  door  on  this  question,  nor  does  he  put  his  little  finger  to  one.  He  frankly 
ventures  on  some  suggestions,  which,  perchance,  may  prove  prophetic.  But  Mr.  Clay,  so  far 
as  we  can  see,  is  not  committed  or  pledged  to  any  course  of  policy  on  this  question,  other 
than — 1.  To  maintain  the  faith  of  treaties.  2.  Not  to  violate  our  rule  of  non-intervention, 
where  our  position  is  neutral.  3.  To  do  what  he  can,  fairly  and  honorably,  to  secure  the 
independence  of  Texas.  4.  To  see  that  our  own  republic  receives  no  damage  by  European 
interference  in  the  affairs  of  Texas.  5.  To  oppose,  if  necessary,  by  force  of  arms,  all  such 
machinations.  6.  To  leave  the  question  of  Annexation  open  and  unembarrassed,  for  the 
future  decision  of  the  parties  concerned,  after  they  shall  have  had  a  fair  and  sufficient  oppor- 
tunity to  consider  it.  And  7.  To  help  the  countiy  through  the  critical  posture,  into  which 
ambitious  men,  reckless  of  consequences,  have  brought  it.  This  is  the  position  of  Mr.  Clay 
on  the  annexation  question,  as  we  understand  it.  He  would  not  pick  a  quarrel,  where  we 
could  only  reap  dishonor,  and  where  we  would  chance  to  have  the  world  against  us.  And  we 
have  reason  to  believe,  there  is  no  part  of  the  Union  and  no  interest,  no  feeling  or  prejudice  on 
this  subject,  which  Mr.  Clay  does  not  regard  with  impartial  and  patriotic  concern. 

§  2.  Mr.  Van  Buren^s  Position  on  Annexation. 

To  understand  this  is  alike  important  and  pertinent,  as  it  goes  to  determine  the  position  of 
Messrs.  Polk  and  Dallas — names  but  little  known  till  lately,  but  whose  whereabouts  we  are 
required  to  notice,  since  the  misfoitunes  of  our  political  opponents  have  suddenly  made  these 
gentlemen  prominent.  The  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  had  been  twice  in  Mr.  Van 
Buren's  hands  for  official  action,  first  as  Secretary  of  State  under  General  Jackson,  and  next 
as  President  of  the  United  States ;  and  we  must  do  him  the  honor  to  say,  that  he  treated  the 
robject  in  both  cases  with  ability  and  fidelity.    His  official  action,  and  the  grounds  of  it,  were 

133 


8 

Mr.  Clay  are  well  enough  agreed,  except  that  Mr.  Clay  goes  a  little  farther,  and  boldly  says, 
he  would  "appeal  to  arms"  in  such  a  case.  Mr.  Polk's  reasoning  is  C7  this  wise: — 1.  Our 
title  to  Texas  was  good.  (Granted.)  2.  We  parted  with  it  most  unwisely.''  (So  says  Mr. 
Clay.)  3.  Therefore,  we  have  a  perfect  right  to  it !  We  would  add,  4.  Why  consult  Texas, 
since  our  title  was  "  indisputable,"  and  since  we  gave  it  up  "  most  unwisely?"  According  to 
this  reasoning,  we  can  take  Texas  whenever  we  please,  though  she  might  get  in  bad  humor, 
and  try  to  annex  herself  elsewhere.  We  should  only  have  to  fight  for  her  at  last,  and  are  sure 
to  be  obliged  to  fight  by  taking  her  now.  But  Mr.  Polk  says,  "  I  have  no  hesitation  in  de- 
claring, that  I  am  in  favor  of  immediate  annexation."     Enough. 

As  for  Mr.  George  M.  Dallas,  when  he  had  never  dreamed  of  so  high  a  destiny  as  to  be  a 
candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency  of  the  United  States,  he  wrote  the  following  letter: — 

Philadelphia,  Feb.  5,  1844. 

Mt  Dear  Sir— I  cannot  resist  the  impulse  to  tell  you  hovr  much  delight  I  have  taken  in  reading  your 
pamphlet  on  Texas,  Ac.  It  is  comprehensive,  clear,  argumentative,  and  eloquent.  Nothing  can  remove  or 
resist  your  facts,  and  I  defy  ingenuity  to  assail  the  justice  and  int«'grity  of  your  deductions.  In  the  midst  of 
all  my  distractijn  at  the  bar,  my  head  has  been  running  on  this  topic  for  some  months,  and  your  admirable 
brochure  comes  to  me  like  manna  in  the  way  of  starved  peonle.— I  cannot  tell  you  without  using  words  you 
might  consider  extravagant,  how  highly  I  appreciate  your  labors,  and  how  sincerely,  as  an  American  Demo 
ern,  I  thank  you. 

Truly,  and  ever  your*,  GEORGE  M.  DALLAS. 

Hon.  R.  J.  Walker. 

Mr.  Dallas  is  evidently  in  an  ecstacy  here.  What  was  it  that  set  him  up  thus  lofty  o\ 
these  stilts  of  poUtical  satisfaction "?  The  answer  is,  that  Mr.  Senator  Walker,  of  Mississippi, 
the  High  Priest  of  the  Tyler  Treaty  of  Annexation,  the  caterer  for  the  altar,  and  the  expouncler 
cf  all  law  on  the  subject, /or  that  side,  commenced  his  work  early  in  January  last  by  a  pub- 
lic letter,  to  which  this  note  of  Mr.  Dallas  refers.  That  letter  proves  anything,  for  anybody. 
For  example : — It  proves  that  the  annexation  of  Texas  is  the  sure  and  only  way  to  get  rid 
of  slavery  in  the  United  States ;  that  it  is  the  only  way  to  support  our  Tariff  system ;  that  it 
is  the  only  way  to  break  down  the  Tariff  system ;  that  it  is  the  only  sure  mode  of  fortifying  and 
perpetuating  "  the  institution  of  slavery ;"  that  Texas  never  owed  allegiance  to  Mexico ;  &c.  &c. 
It  meets  all  tastes,  all  passions,  all  interests,  on  this  question,  North  or  South,  or  anywhere. 
rA«rf/brc,  all  should  go  for  annexation.  {Seethe  Letter.)  This  is  the  Document  which  put 
Mr.  George  M.  Dallas  into  such  ecstacies,  as  his  note,  above,  indicates.  It  was  "a  brochure'^ 
that  came  to  him  "ZiArc  manna  in  the  way  of  starved  people.^'  He  could  not  tell  all  the  satisfac- 
tion he  felt,  without  being  "  considered  extravagant.'''  If  Mr.  Polk  could  have  written  a  let- 
ter, without  thinking  that  he  was  a  candidate  for  the  Vice  Presidency,  we  might  have  had 
another  "  bi-ochureJ'  Both  of  them,  however,  stand  pretty  fairly  and  thoroughly  committed 
for  "■immediate  annexation."     Such  is  their  position. 

§  4.  It  is  a  poor  rule  thai  wont  work  both  ways. 

We  have  seen  how  skilfully  the  argument  for  "  immediate  annexation"  is  adapted  to  all 
tastes  and  interests.  Mr.  Senator  Walker,  whose  reasoning  is  so  commended  by  Mr.  Dallas, 
and  who  ^as  made  himself  so  prominent  in  support  and  defence  of  the  Tyler  treaty,  main- 
tains, that  we  can  acquire  and  can  cede  territory  constitutionally ;  but  is  obliged  to  rely  upon 
the  principle,  that  we  could  not  constitutionally  cede  away  Texas.  Therefore,  the  treaty  of 
1819  is  mUl  ami  void.  Texas  is  ours — "  ail  our  own?''  This,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  is  the  techni- 
cal ground,  or  the  special  pleading,  on  which  "  immediate  annexation"  is  based.  It  is  said,  that 
in  our  treaty  of  1803,  with  France,  by  which  we  purchased  Louisiana,  we  guaranteed  the 
ri»ht  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  that  territory,  to  come  into  the  Union  as  a  state,  or  states, 
whenever  their  population  should  be  sufficient,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  Federal  com- 
pact This  is  true.  And  in  pursuance  of  that  engagement,  we  have  already  made  three 
States,  Louisiana,  Missouri,  and  Arkansas.  The  authority  of  Vattel  is  then  cited,  to  show, 
that  a  State  or  nation  cannot  make  a  new  treaty  with  a  new  party,  to  vitiate  a  former  treaty 
with  another  party.  Consequently,  the  treaty  of  1819,  with  Spain,  which  ceded  away  Texas, 
is  null  and  voxd.  The  citizens  of  Texas  have  a  constitutional  right,  on  this  foundation,  to 
claim  admission  into  our  Union,  as  a  separate  and  independent  State.  This  is  the  argument 
of  Mr.  Walker,  and  the  ground  on  which  the  Tyler  treaty  of  annexation  was  based.  It  is, 
we  believe,  the  sole  ground  on  which  the  "  Immediatists,"  when  hardly  pressed,  can  fall  back. 
— Let  U8  consider  it : — 

In  the  first  place,  we  have  made  three  States  out  of  the  territory  acquired  by  the  treaty  of 
1803.  In  the  second  place,  the  Spaniards,  in  the  valley  and  on  the  bank  of  the  Rio  del  Norte, 
and  any  other  Spaniards,  occupants  of  Texas,  when  it  was  ceded  by  us  to  Spain,  in  1819, 
did  not  object,  and  do  not  to  this  day  object,  but  prefer  to  remain  under  Mexico.  In  the  third 
place,  they  who  now  apply  for  annexation,  were  not  inhabitants  of  Texas  in  1819,  and  there- 
fore cannot  plead  the  right  claimed  for  them.  In  the  fourth  place,  when  they  went  there, 
voluntarily,  they  voluntarily  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  a  province  of  Mexico,  and  by  that 
act  oUem/aUd  thenuelveg  from  our  Union.    In  the  fifth  place,  and  consequently,  they  caimot 

136 


9 

claim  the  rights  of  American  citizens.  In  the  sixth  place,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  never 
have  claimed  those  rights,  but  they  present  themselves  to  us  as  alicjis,  soliciting  annexation 
as  an  alien  sovereignty.  In  the  seventh  place,  Texas,  as  a  piece  of  territory,  is  evidently  in  a 
mute  condition,  and  cannot  assert  the  rights  of  a  party  in  this  question.  Where,  then,  is  the 
party  entitled  to  claim  admission  to  our  Union  on  such  a  ground  ?  No  such  party  has  ever 
yet  presented  itself  It  will,  therefore,  be  time  enough  to  consider  its  claims,  when  it  does. 
The  argument  amounts  to  this  : — We  confess  ourselves  to  have  been  rogues  in  the  treaty  of 
1819,  for  a  supposed  benefit  then,  that  we  may  profit  by  our  roguery  in  a  beneftt  now.  The 
Texans  are  too  modest  to  take  any  advantage  of  our  confession,  and  come  to  us  with  a  man- 
ly front,  soliciting  annexation  as  an  alien  State.  We,  desiring  the  Union,  but  finding  obsta- 
cles in  our  relations  with  Mexico,  suddenly  discover  a  flaw  in  an  old  contract,  of  which  no- 
body complains,  by  which  no  parly  was  injured,  but  which  can  be  mended  by  breaking  later 
contracts,  and  by  defrauding  a  party,  which  lives  to  complain,  does  complain,  and  peradven- 
ture  may  sue  for  redress.  What  is  the  name  of  such  a  case  in  law  ?  "We  do  not  deny  that 
the  cession  of  1819  was  unconstitutional,  if  any  choose  to  have  it  so.  We  have  done  many 
unconstitutional  things  in  our  history,  which  cannot  be  undone.  It  is  said,  that  Mr.  Clay 
Was  of  opinion  that  this  treaty  was  unconstitutional,  and  that  he  offered  a  resolution  in  Con- 
gress, in  1820,  to  that  efl^ect.  The  Constitution  was  our  own  rule,  not  a  rule  for  Spain,  nor  a 
part  of  the  law  of  nations.  The  rights  and  interests  of  a  vast  variety  of  parties,  and  of 
whole  nations,  have  been  established  on  our  error.  Can  we  rightfully  assert  that  error  to 
dispossess  them  ?  If  we  claim  Texas  on  this  ground,  we  must  give  up  Florida,  which  was 
acquired  by  the  same  treaty,  and  which  has  already  cost  us  Jifty  millions.  Is  not  this  the 
case,  and  the  consequence  ? 

§  5.  A  state  of  War. 

The  "  Immediate  .Annexationists,-^  aware  of  the  critical  position  into  which  they  were  about 
to  plunge  the  country,  in  its  relations  with  Mexico,  have  denied  that  there  \s  a  state  of  war 
between  Mexico  and  Texas.  Mr.  Senator  Walker  says,  that  ever  since  the  battle  of  San  Ja- 
cinto, in  1836,  the  relations  between  Mexico  and  Texas  have  "been  a  state  of  peace — of 
profound  peace."*  He  moreover  says  that  the  Government  of  Mexico  "  is  not  now,  and  never 
UHU  the  Government  of  Texas,"  and  that  "  the  people  of  Texas  never  owed  or  rendered  it 
any  allegiance." 

The  PubliciatB,  or  writers  on  International  law.  say,  that  "  war  ig  a  controversy  by  lorce.  Nations  are  said 
to  be  at  war,  not  only  when  their  armies  are  ensaged,  but  also  wlien  they  have  any  matter  in  dispute  which 
they  are  determined  to  decide  by  the  use  offeree,  and  have  declared  by  words,  or  shown  by  certain  actions, 
that  they  are  determined  so  to  decide  it.  War,  therefore,  signifies  not  only  an  act,  but  a  state  or  condition.'* 
— Rutherford.  "  Custom  has  so  far  prevailed,  that  not  the  act,  but  the  state  or  disposition  now  goes  by  that 
name"  (war.)— Grorttw. 

In  Kennedy's  "  Texas,"  the  Anglo-American  population  of  Texas,  the  party  now  in  con- 
troversy with  Mexico,  is  stated  to  be  200,000,  and  the  Mexican  population,  within  the  borders 
of  the  Republic  of  Texas,  he  puts  at  100,000 ;  a  later  authority  makes  it  150,000,  This  Mex- 
ican population  lies  chiefly  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  del  Norte,  is  entirely  subject  to  Mexi- 
co, and  so  far  as  we  know,  they  prefer  Mexican  jurisdiction.  Mexico  not  only  maintains  an 
undisturbed  civil  jurisdiction  over  these  parts  of  the  Republic  of  Texas,  but  has  military  oc- 
cupation thereof,  with  hostile  intent  and  hostile  demonstrations — is  in  Bhori  encamped  in  the 
Republic  of  Texas,  without  having  experienced  any  disturbance  of  its  position.  The  Re- 
public of  Texas  is  not  only  in  actual  military  dispute  between  these  belligerent  parties,  but 
jt  is  at  least  doubtful,  which  party  is  most  strongly  entrenched  on  the  premises.  If  we  take 
Ml*.  Tyler's  Message  to  the  Senate,  accompanying  the  Treaty,  who  says,  "  I  repeat^  the  Ex- 
ecutive saw  Texas  in  a  state  of  almost  fiopeless  exhaustions^  we  may  fairly  conclude,  that  Mex 
ico  is  much  the  strongest  party  on  the  ground.  She  is  there,  confessedly,  in  military  array, 
and  in  undisturbed  possession  of  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  territory  and  population  of 
Texas.  The  people  she  governs  without  dispute,  and  by  their  own  choice.  Mr.  Tyler,  in 
his  last  Annual  Message,  and  all  his  official  documents,  referring  to  the  subject,  calls  this 
**  WAB."  So  do  our  Secretaries  of  State,  Messrs.  Webster,  Upshur,  and  Calhoun,  in  all  that 
they  say  about  it.  So  do  the  public  functionaries  of  other  nations  in  their'  correspondence 
with  the  belligerent  parties  and  other  powers  on  the  subject.  So  do  the  authorities  of  Mexi- 
CO  and  Texas.  President  Houston  oflficially  proclaimed  an  armistice,  the  15th  of  June,  1843, 
but  prematurely,  as  it  was  not  consummated.  Mexico  and  Texas  have  been  continually  fight- 
ing, oy  sea  and  land,  since  1836,  whenever  they  could,  and  Mexico  has  officially  notified  our 
Government  more  than  once,  that  the  Annexation  of  Texas  to  this  Union  will  be  regarded  by 
Mexico  as  an  adoption  of  the  war,  and  in  this  she  still  persists,  even  down  to  the  return  of, 
dispatches  to  Washington,  June  17th,  1844.  Will  anybody  say,  fiis  is  lot  a  staXi  of  war  be- 
tween Mexico  and  Texas  ?— Mr.  Senator  Walker  calls  it  '^aprofovmi  ymctT 

137 


10 

§  6.  Amtncan  Doctrine  of  Neutrality  and  Non-intervention  towards  BellirjereTxts. 

"  Peace  with  all  nations,  and  entangling  alliances  with  none,**  was  the  advice  of  Washing- 
ton, and  this  principle  has  been  sanclioiicd  by  our  practice  from  that  time  to  this,  except  as, 
in  regai-d  to  the  first  part  of  this  advice,  just  provocations  have  summoned  us  to  arms — for 
which  also  we  are  advised  by  the  same  authority,  "  in  peace  prepare  for  war."  Not  to  "  en- 
tangle" ourselves  in  the  quarrels  of  belligerents,  has  ever  been  the  policy  of  our  Government, 
till  Mr.  Tyler  got  up  the  Treaty  of  Annexation.  In  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of 
the  South  American  States,  of  Mexico  and  Texas,  the  successive  administrations  of  Monroe, 
Adams,  Jackson,  and  Van  Buren,  were  careful  to  advise  all  whom  it  might  concern — they 
published  it  to  the  world — that  this  act,  "  in  no  sense  or  degree,"  went  or  could  be  construed 
to  determine  the  merits  of  the  controversy  pending,  or  which  party  was  in  the  right.  Our 
principle  and  aim  always  have  been  to  acknowledge  the  government  ik  facto  (actual),  but 
never  to  judge  the  question  of  right  between  belligerents,  knowing,  that  by  this  last  decision, 
as  to  rig}U,  we  should  render  ourselves  liable  by  the  law  of  nations,  to  be  held  responsible  as 
a  party  in  the  contest.  The  Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  Foreign  Affairs, 
1822,  reporting  in  favor  of  recognizing  the  independence  of  certain  of  the  South  American 
States,  said,  "  Whatever  might  be  the  policy  of  Spain  in  respect  to  her  former  American  Colo- 
nies, our  recognition  of  their  independence  can  neither  affect  her  rights,  nor  impair  hei 
means  in  the  accomplishment  of  that  policy.  Should  Spain,  contrary  to  her  avowed  aim  and 
acknowledged  interests,  renew  the  war  for  the  conquest  of  South  America,  we  shall  observe, 
as  we  have  done,  between  the  parties,  an  honest  and  impartial  neutrality" 

President  Monroe,  in  recommending  this  recognition,  said,  "  It  is  not  contemplated,  there- 
by, to  change,  in  the  slightest  degree,  our  friendly  relations  with  either  party.  Of  this  friendly 
disposition,  an  assurance  will  be  given  to  the  Government  of  Spain."  The  Secretary  of  State 
Raid  to  the  Spanish  Minister,  in  his  correspondence  on  the  same  subject,  "  This  recognition  is 
not  intended  to  invalidate  any  right  of  Spain."  Mr.  Forsyth,  acting  under  the  instructions  of 
President  Van  Buren,  in  1837,  says  to  General  Hunt,  the  Texan  Ambassador,  applying  for 
Annexation, — 

"  In  determining  with  respect  to  the  Independence  of  other  countries,  the  United  States  have  never  taken 
the  question  of  right  between  the  contending  parties  into  cousi  leralion.  .  .  This  was  the  course  pursued 
with  respect  to  Mexico  herself.  It  was  adhered  to  when  analogous  events  rendered  it  proper  to  investigate 
the  question  of  Texan  independence.  .  .  The  question  ot  the  annexation  of  foreign  independent  Stares  to  th& 
United  States,  has  never  before  been  presented  to  this  Government."  With  regard  to  the  purchase  of  Loiti- 
siana  and  Florida,  Mr.  Forsyth  says: — "The  circumstance  of  their  being  CiHonial  possessions  ol  France  and 
Spain,  and  therefore  dependent  on  the  MetropoUtaii  Governments,  renders  those  transactions  matprially  dif- 
ferent from  tliat  which  would  be  presented  by  the  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas.  .  .  The  President 
thinks  it  inexpedient,  under  existing  circumstances,  to  agitate  the  Constitutional  question.  .  .  So  Ions  ai 
Texas  sliall  remain  at  war,  while  the  United  States  are  at  peace,  with  her  adversary,  the  propo.silion  ofthe 
Texan  M  nister  Pl'-n-jjotentiary  necessarily  involves  the  question  of  war  with  that  adversary,"  &c.  (Soe 
further  on  this  point,  $  2./ 

Such  has  been  the  uniform  practice  of  our  Government,  till  Mr.  Tyler,  in  his  Message  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  June  10th,  of  the  current  year,  appealing  from  the  Senate  to 
that  body,  said — "  The  Executive  has  dealt  with  Texas  as  a  power  independent  of  all  others, 
both  de  facto  and  de  jure^^ — and  here  the  Rubicon  was  passed.  That  act,  sanctioned,  would 
have  involved  us  in  war.  ^s  it  is,  but  for  the  favorable  consideration,  on  the  part  of  Mexico 
and  other  powers,  arising  out  ofthe  rejection  of  the  treaty  by  the  Senate,  it  might  even  yet 
involve  us  in  war.  The  act  itself,  and  its  accompaniments,  were  acts  of  hostility^  by  the  law 
of  nations. 

§  7.  Recrimination. 

It  is  said,  that  President  Adams,  in  1827,  and  General  Jackson, in  1829,  made  suit  to  Mexi 
CO  for  Texas,  before  the  independence  of  Mexico  was  acknowledged  by  Spain,  which  is  the 
same  thing  as  to  negotiate  with  Texas  alone  for  Texas.  It  is  not  the  same  thing.  1,  ^e- . 
cause  negotiations  were  at  the  same  periods  opened  with  Spain,  and  there  is  no  evidence, 
that  either  Mr.  Adams  or  General  .Jackson  contemplated  getting  Texas  without  the  sanction, 
of  Spain.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  evenr  reason  to  believe  that  they  considered  such  con- 
sent indispensable*  2.  It  is  maintainea,  by  the  Immediatists,  that  Mexico  has  suffered  a 
lapse  of  her  rights,  by  lapse  of  time — eight  years — and  by  default  of  asserting  them.  We  have 
seen  how  she  asserts  them  ;  and  if  they  have  expired  in  eight  years,  much  more  had  the  rights 
of  Spain  expired  in  1827  and  1820,  the  first  period  being  seventeen  and  the  second  nvWfwi  years 
after  the  commencement  ofthe  Revolution,  in  1810.  By  the  Treaty  of  Cordova,  in  1821, the 
independence  of  Mexico,  and  her  ability  to  maintain  it,  were  acknowledged,  and  the  extinc- 
tion of  the  power  of  Spain  in  Mexico,  was  declared.  It  is  true  the  king  refused  to  ratify  the 
treaty,  and  afterwards,  in  1829  occupied  Tampico  with  a  small  force  forty-four  days,  when  it 
was  reduced  and  surrendered.  In  1836,  Spain,  contrary  to  custom,  acknowledged  the  inde- 
pendence of  Mexico,  because  Cuba  needed  it  for  purposes  of  commerce.    But  she  did  not 

138 


11 

acknowledge  the  independence  of  ITolland  till  seventy  years  af^er  her  revbU,  aii^sljli's^tl 
clainns  her  rights  over  Colonies  which  have  hocn  independent  for  a  quarter  of  a  century, 
more  or  less.  Unable  to  take  care  of  herself,  she  lets  them  alone,  and  other  nations,  by  com- 
mon consent,  have  virtually  settled  the  question  for  her,  as  in  the  case  of  Holland.  Never- 
theless, neither  Mr.  Adams  nor  General  Jackson,  so  far  as  appears,  would  have  taken  Texas 
without  the  consent  of  Spain.  3.  Our  relations  with  Mexico  are  widely  different  from  our 
relations  with  Spain.  Spain  was  beyond  sea,  and  the  Treaty  of  Cordova  had  acknowledged 
her  power  in  Mexico  to  be  extinct,  as  in  fact  it  was.  She  could  not  take  care  of  herself,  but 
was  under  the  protection  and  in  the  hands  of  European  powers.  Whereas,  Mexico  is  a  bor- 
der Republic  ;  we  have  treaty  engagements  with  her  for  amity  and  Intercourse,  corresponding 
with  our  relative  position  and  mutual  necessities;  in  18.31,  we  made  a  special  treaty  of 
boundary  with  her,  cased  on  our  treaty  with  Spain,  in  1819,  thereby  recognizing  the  rights  of 
Mexico  over  Texas,  which  is  a  treaty  still,  with  all  its  obligations  unimpaired,  so  that,  as  ber 
twcen  us  and  Mexico,  Texas  is  a  province  of  Mexico,  notwithstanding  that  we  acknowledge., 
Texas  as  the  Government  de  facto,  so  long  as  she  maintains  her  ground.  This  is  our  doc- 
trine  and  our  practice.  4.  Mexico  has  kept  uninterrupted  possession  of  2000  miles  of  the 
Republic  of  Texas,  in  one  direction,  extending  so  far  into  the  heart  of  it,  as  to  embrace  the 
whole  of  some  and  parts  of  other  of  her  departments,  some  large  and  important  towns,  and  a 
population  but  little  short  of  that  which  acknowledges  the  jurisdiction  of  Texas.  As  a  neu- 
tral power  on  terms  of  amity  with  both,  we  are  not  entitled  to  decide  their  relative  rights  and 
claims,  nor  can  we  lavvfully  interfere  in  their  disputes.  We  have  as  good  a  right  to  negotiate 
with  Mexico  alone  for  Texas,  as  with  Texas  alone,  and  are  equally  bound  to  respect  the 
claims  of  both. 

§  8.   The  Weakness  of  Mexico. 

Mr.  Senator  Walker  says  — "  If  Mexico  should  make  war  on  us,  it  would  excite  nothing  but 
pity  and  derision,  as  well  among  women  and  children,  as  among  men."  We  say — "  Let  not 
him  that  putteth  his  harness  on,  boast  himself  as  he  that  putteth  it  off 

"  He's  doubly  arm'd  who  hath  his  quarrel  just." 

Let  us  consider  this  imputed  weakness  of  Mexico.  The  Florida  Indians  were  weak^ 
but  it  took  us  some  half  dozen  years,  and  it  is  said  to  have  cost  us  forty  miliums,  to  subdue 
them.  These  Indians  were  comparatively  accessible,  and  begirt  by  impassable  seas.  Be- 
tween us  and  Mexico,  in  case  of  war,  lies  a  waste  of  a  thousand  miles,  to  be  marched  over, 
the  almost  undisputed  domain  of  wild  and  fierce  aboriginal  tribes,  if  they  choose  to  make  it 
90,  and  for  which  they  might  have  strong  inducements.  Ten  to  one  they  would  be  in  the 
melee.  With  the  numerous  tribes  of  those  vast  regions  against  us,  a  civilized  army  would 
chance  to  perish  before  them,  as  did  the  legions  of  Napoleon  on  the  plains  of  Russia.  Aid 
they  would  not  be  without,  while  we  have  enemies.  But,  it  may  be  said,  we  would  move 
quick,  and  strike  a  sudden  blow.  And  would  Mexico  be  asleep  ?  "  Forewarned,  foreai-med. " 
In  such  a  cause,  she  would  be  united  to  a  man  and  ready  for  the  fight.  Such,  we  under- 
stand, are  her  feelings  now.  She  would  await  us  on  her  own  ground,  can  at  any  moment 
bring  ten,  probably  twenty  times  more  force  into  her  own  fields  than  we  can  move  towards 
them ;  and  they  would  fight  by  their  fire  sides,  for  their  fire  sides — for  their  altars  and  their 
sacred  home.  Do  we  count  on  raising  a  large  force  1  Armies  require  money,  and  money 
must  be  voted.  In  a  republic,  war,  to  be  vigorous,  must  have  the  heart  of  the  people  enlisted 
in  it.  They  must  know  and  feel,  that  they  are  in  the  right.  Will  it  be  so  in  this  case  1  If 
not,  you  are  beaten,  before  you  begin.  In  such  a  case  you  cannot  march  an  army  one  inch 
towards  Mexico.  You  will  have  no  army.  Your  half  dozen  regiments — what  are  they  ?  Do 
you  talk  oi  volunteers  ?  How  will  you  coax  them  at  the  end  of  a  seven  days'  march  and  .sore 
feetl  Where  is  your  commissariat,  without  an  appropriation  adequate  to  the  enterprise? 
If  you  could  raise  troops,  you  are  without  clothing  and  food.  You  have  to  ask  the  people  for 
supplies,  and  the  people,  peradventure,  dorCt  like  the  war.  You  did  not  consult  them.  By 
this  time,  Mexico  has  filled  her  chests  with  millions  of  gold,  for  commissions  sold  to  count- 
less privateers,  which,  in  six  months,  will  have  destroyed  fifty  millions,  more  or  less,  of  your 
commerce;  and  with  that  gold,  armies  will  come  quick, move  briskly,  and  fight  \yell.  By 
this  time,  too,  Mexico  may  have  formed  her  alliances,  offensive  and  defensive,  with  Great 
Britain,  or  France,  or  both.  M.  Guizot,  prime  minister  of  Louis  Philippe,  it  is  said  by  a 
Paris  Journal,  the  ConstitvUionnel,  has  already  recorded  his  protest,  in  behalf  of  France,  against 
the  annexation  of  Texas  to  us;  and  Mr.  Everett  tells  us,  that,  on  the  17th  of  May,  Lord 
Aberdeen  said  in  the  House  of  Lords,  that  this  affair  "  raised  a  question  unexampled  in  the 
history  of  public  law,  which  would  demand  and  receive  the  early  attention  of  Her  Majesty's 
government."  It  appears  to  be  morally  certain  that  in  our  breach  of  faith  with  Mexico,  for 
purposes  of  conquest,  or  for  such  objects  as  will  be  attributed  to  us  in  this  case,  Mexico  will 
kave  much  sympathy,  and  not  unlikely  will  be  able  to  form  any  alliances  required  to  make 

A30 


12 

her  formidable  to  us  by  sea  and  land.  It  will  be  a  war  of  sentiment — of  opinion,  as  well  as 
of  interest — and  the  opinion  of  the  world  will  be  against  us,  right  or  wrong.  If  we  provoke 
the  world  to  oppose  our  war  for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  it  will  chance  to  cost  us  htmdrtdg 
ofrmUions,  without  getting  Texas.  Strong  and  invincible  as  we  may  be,  when  imited  in  a  good 
caiue,  it  would  be  a  rash  enterprise  to  brave  the  opinion,  and  set  at  defiance  the  powers  of 
the  civilized  world.  We  have  presented  this  picture  as  Si  probable  futttre,  on  the  contingencies 
supposed ;  and  honestly,  we  can  conceive  nothing  more  probable.  The  annexation  treaty 
brought  us  to  the  verge  of  a  war,  such  as  history  has  rarely,  if  ever,  recorded.  Mexico  weak  ? 
That  depends  entirely  upon  circumstances.  There  is  no  power  on  earth  so  strong  as  she 
would  be  against  us,  if  the  world  should  pronounce  us  in  the  wrong. 

§  9.  For  whose  advantage  is  Immediaie  Annexation, 

It  seems  to  be  generally  understood  that  the  project  of  annexation  has  some  connection 
with  slavery.  K  Mr.  Senator  Walker's  theoiy  (one  of  his  theories),  to  wit,  that  annexation 
will  open  a  natural  outlet  of  slavery  and  of  African  blood,  to  merge  itself  with  the  already 
partially  colored  races  of  the  tropical  regions  of  this  continent,  till  it  disappear  from  its  pre- 
sent latitudes,  and  vanish  into  freedom — if  this  theory  should  prove  a  sound  one,  there  will 
of  course  be  no  objection  to  annexation  among  those  who  dislike  slavery.  But  if  the  motive 
is  to  establish  slavery  more  securely,  they  who  go  for  it  on  that  account,  will  doubtless  think 
it  prudent  to  consider  whether  the  annexation  of  a  foreign  state  will  not  be  regarded  by  many 
as  surpjissing  the  powers  of  the  Constitution  ;  and  whether  this  opinion  may  not  be  enter- 
tained to  such  an  extent  as  to  put  in  peril  the  security  now  afforded  to  slavery  by  the  Con- 
stitution itself,  so  long  as  the  present  bounds  of  the  republic  are  not  extended?  As  things 
now  are,  no  power  can  Constitutionally  disturb  the  slave  States  in  the  matter  of  slavery.  But 
if  they  insist  on  having  Texas,  while  a  general  impression  prevails  that  such  a  union  is  un- 
constitutional, the  present  rights  of  the  slave  States,  as  determined  by  the  Constitution,  may 
be  held  as  forfeited.  This,  as  will  be  seen,  would  put  slavery  in  a  new  position,  and  possi- 
bly might  defeat  the  object  of  annexation  as  alleged.  If,  indeed,  this  has  been  foreseen,  and 
the  plan  of  a  southern  and  independent  slaveholding  Confederacy  be  relied  upon  to  meet  the 
case,  that,  too,  is  at  best  a  contingency,  and  one  that  might  properly  claim  much  grave  re- 
flection before  it  is  attempted.  Now  the  slave  States  are  secure,  and  can  have  slavery  as  long 
as  they  choose  to  maintain  it.  But  break  away  the  dam,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  tell  where  the 
waters  will  run.  It  should  be  well  considered,  that,  while  the  people  of  the  free  States,  na- 
turally and  generally  averse  to  slavery,  will  feel  bound  to  defend  the  Constitution  for  the 
whole  republic  within  its  present  limits,  they  would  as  naturally  be  reluctant  to  aid  in  em- 
ploying tne  powers  of  the  Federal  Government,  which  were  professedly  set  up  to  give  and 
secure  freedom  to  mankind,  to  extend  yet  farther,  and  farther  to  fortify  the  domain  of  slavery. 

It  ought  doubtless  to  be  fairly  stated  and  well  settled,  whether  Texas  is  to  be  annexed  for 
the  common  and  equal  good  of  all  parts  of  the  Union,  or  only  for  the  supposed  good  of  one 
section  ?  There  is  a  heavy  debt  to  fall  upon  the  country  by  this  transaction,  according  to 
the  developments  of  the  Tyler  treaty.  If  Pennsylvania  is  not  to  be  benefited,  will  it  be  fair 
to  add  one  or  two  millions  to  her  present  burden  of  forty  millions,  to  nay  the  debts  of  a 
foreign  state,  when  she  cannot  pay  the  interest  on  her  own  debt  except  by  direct  taxation  ? 
Thenard-working  and  hard-fisted  people  of  the  free  States,  who  live  by  the  sweat  of  their 
brows,  and  who  look  upon  labor  as  an  honor,  and  not  as  a  servile  brand,  will  want  to  know, 
if  this  El  Dorado  of  the  south  west  will  be  a  field  for  them  to  find  gold  in;  or  whether,  if 
they  go  there,  they  will  have  to  work,  side  by  side,  with  slaves  ?  If  they  are  to  buy  it,  and 
pay  for  it,  they  will  wish  to  know,  whether  they  are  to  get  their  money's  worth  ? 

§  10.  Immediate  Annexation  in  the  Ught  of  Political  Economy. 

Tbat  Texas  would  add  much  to  the  geographical  perfection  of  this  Republican  Empire,  is 
certain;  that  it  is  a  great  and  valuable  country,  is  no  less  true;  that  it  is  likely  to  constituta 
a  part  of  this  Union,  at  a  future  day,  may  easily  bo  believed ;  but  a  little  reflection  will  show, 
that  its  immediate  annexation  as  a  slave  State,  will  of  necessity  and  rapidly  revolutionize  the 
commercial  condition  of  the  present  slave  States,  and  tend  to  impoverish  them.  The  market 
for  the  staples  of  the  South,  in  which  the  wealth  of  the  slave  States  consists,  is  a  limited  one, 
and  must  remain  so,  with  slow  and  slight  variations;  and  it  is  well  known, that  those  States 
arc  capable  of  enhancing  the  supply  of  these  staples  to  an  indefinite  amount,  which  a  grow- 
ing  demand  would  instantly  call  forth.  Let  Texas  be  annexed,  and  the  field  for  the  produc- 
tion of  these  staples,  more  especially  of  Cotton  and  Sugar,  would  be  almost  instantly  trans- 
ferred to  the  more  inviting  soil  of  this  new  member  of  the  family,  and  the  laborers  (the  slaves) 
must  go  too.  Texas  alone,  under  our  fostering  government  and  adequate  culture,  would, 
after  a  short  season,  furnish  all  these  most  important  staples  to  the  full  demand  of  the  market 
at  much  lets  cost,  and  the  chief  business  of  the  present  slave  States  would  be  to  raise  negroes !  1 

140  * 


13 

The  South  would  be  removed  into  the  South  West,  and  a  vast  desert  would  be  created  be- 
tween the  two  great  sections  of  the  Union  (if  Union  there  would  be  after  b\\c%  a  revolution) 
— a  mere  stable  for  the  breeding  of  slaves !  And  slave-breeding  itself  would  soon  flag,  and  give 
place  to  other  inventions,  which  necessity  and  poverty  might  suggest.  There  is  no  power 
that  could  prevent  a  result  of  this  kind,  in  the  case  supposed,  though  we  may  be  unable  ex- 
actly to  estimate  the  extent  of  it.  It  may  perhaps  be  said,  that  this  transfer  of  the  field  of 
Cotton,  &c.,  is  inevitable,  annexation  or  no  annexation,  and  that  it  will  be  better  to  have  it 
under  our  own  control.  If  it  is  inevitable,  why  precipitate  the  ruin  of  the  Southern  States  ? — 
But  we  do  not  think  it  is  inevitable.  As  a  province  of  Mexico,Texa8  would  never  be  a  competi- 
tor of  any  section  of  this  Union,  and  as  an  independent  State,  Mr.  Tyler  solemnly  declares  he 
^  found  her  in  a  state  of  almost  hopeless  exhaustion."  No  doubt  he  did  find  her  so.  So  far  from 
*.hreatening  to  rival  any  of  the  States  of  this  Union,  in  a  separate  and  independent  existence. 
It  is  much  more  probable,  that  a  half  century  to  come  would  not  find  Texas  relieved  from  the 
ruinous  effects  of  her  social  profligacy  and  her  financial  prodigality,  if  it  could  ever  be  done. 
If  the  people  of  the  South  are  so  filled  with  concern  on  account  of  Abolition  at  home  and  Abo- 
lition abroad,  as  to  be  willing  to  throw  away  the  shield  of  the  Constitution,  and  plunge  head- 
long into  such  a  suicidal  abyss,  it  will  at  least  amaze  all  sober  thinking  men. 

But  it  is  said,  Texas  will  throw  herself  into  the  arms  of  a  European  power,  if  we  do  not 
take  her.  There  is  not  a  nation  on  earth  that  would  accept  the  boon,  without  our  consent 
Witness  the  repeated  and  gratuitous  disavowals  of  the  British  Government  of  any  such  in- 
tent, within  a  twelvemonth  past.  So  long  as  we  maintain  the  plighted  faith  of  our  neutral 
position,  and  adhere  to  our  principle  of  non-intervention  with  belligerent  States,  we  can  at 
least  respect  ourselves,  and  we  shall  certainly  have  the  strongest  possible  ground  to  defend 
our  rights  of  contiguity  to  Texas,  founded  on  the  public  law  of  nations,  against  aggressors. 
As  a  fragment  of  a  border  and  friendly  power,  to  which  we  are  bound  by  a  treaty  of  amity 
and  good  faith,  Texas,  itself  on  our  border,  cannot  claim  the  right,  first  to  rebel,  thereby 
opening  a  field  of  war  and  disturbance  between  us  and  our  ally,  and  then  to  put  or  Jidmit  €ui 
enemy  there.  Nor  can  Texas  fairly  accuse  us  of  unkindness.  It  is  not  a  case  in  which 
kindness  can  overlook  principle.  She  cannot  demand  of  us  to  set  her  up  on  our  own  ruin,  or 
to  our  own  dishonor.  Charity  is  out  of  the  question,  so  long  as  our  national  faith,  our  owa 
public  professions  and  engagements,  forbid  its  exercise. 

§  11.  It  is  said  tee  want  Texas  for  defence  against  Free- Trade  and  War, 

As  to  war,  whatever  be  our  limits,  we  are  exposed  to  that,  and  the  wider  they  are,  the 
ipreater  the  exposure.  It  is  not  difficult  to  see,  that  we  already  have  a  sea-board  long  enough 
to  defend  against  a  powerful  maritime  foe,  without  adding  five  hundred  miles  to  the  line, 
with  all  the  costs  of  fortifying  it.  Texas,  as  a  neuti-al  State,  in  a  time  of  war  with  Great 
Britain,  or  any  European  nation,  would  be  a  wall  of  defence,  instead  of  a  battle-field ;  and  it 
will  be  our  business  to  see,  that  she  stands  neutral,  if  she  chooses  to  be  independent  We 
have  had  two  warswith  Great  Britain,  with  her  jurisdiction  bordering  upon  us  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  with  far  greater  facilities  of  descent  upon  us,  than 
Texas  would  afford,  even  if  she  were  a  British  province.  As  for  Free  Trade,  smuggling,  and 
e11  that,  if  a  Tariff  is  necessary  to  us,  it  will  be  necessary  for  Texas,  and  for  the  same  reasons. 
She  is  not  so  rich  as  to  be  able  to  do  without  a  revenue.  In  1838  she  adopted  the  revenue 
laws  of  the  United  States — not  as  they  stood  then,  for  thev  were  not  high  enough — but  as 
they  stood  a  year  before.  Even  if  she  could  afford,  or  should  be  foolish  enough,  to  sacrifice 
herself  on  the  altar  of  free  trade,  smuggling  through  her  would  be  much  more  difficult  than 
over  the  boundary  between  us  and  the  British  dominions  on  the  North,  of  which  we  have  so 
little,  as  to  hear  nothing. 

§  12.   Tlie  Tnie  Reasons  for  Immediate  Annexation. 

Mr.  Benton,  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  has,  we  believe,  stated  them  truly.  1-  Spec 
ulation  in  Texas  funds  and  land  scrip.  2.  To  make  political  capital  for  the  Presidential  Elec- 
tion. And  3.  To  dissolve  the  Union,  and  erect  a  Southern  slave-holding  Confederacy.  The 
first  panders  to  the  second,  and  the  third  is  a  conspiracy  by  itself.  It  is  a  singular  fact,  in  the 
currentof  events,  that  the  great,  and  for  a  long  time  dominant  political  party  of  this  country, 
which  has  always  laid  claim  to  clean  hands  and  pure  hearts  in  their  aversion  to  and  exemp- 
tion from  the  influence  of  stock-jobbers,  moneyed  capitalists,  and  a  moneyed  aristocracy, 
have  at  last  formed  an  alliance  with  a  stock-jobbing  interest  in  amount  far  greater  than  the 
entire  capital  of  a  National  Bank,  and  as  much  more  dangerous  than  a  bank,  as  the  former 
is  perfectly  irresponsible,  intangible,  and  beyond  the  reach  of  any  law,  while  the  latter  is 
amenable  to  the  Government  and  the  people.  Such  precisely  is  the  position  of  this  great 
party  at  this  moment  Thev  have  at  least  a  hundred  millions  of  dollars  ps  political  capital 
to  speculate  upon,  and  all  which  can  be  bought  with  this  amount  of  money  in  prospect,  prop- 

141 


L  eriy  distributed,  will  inure  to  their  benefit.  This  capital  is  worth  littie  or  nothing  without 
I-  their  success  ;  milk  it,  it  mounts  instantly  to  par,  and  to  a  premium.  The  interests  and  peo- 
['  nle  of  this  Union,  maybe — mmi  inevUabli/  be  injured  to  an  inestimable  amount ;  they  may 
h  be  ruined  5  but  the  fortunes  of  the  leaders  of  this  party,  and  of  those  who  buy  them  up,  are  ati 
Vetake.     It  is  a  great  stake,  and  will  be  fought  for  desperately. 

r  •     As  for  the  conspiracy  ol  treason,  to  dissolve  the  Union,  and  erect  a  Southern  slave-holdini 
W  Confederacy,  it  is  not  for  us  to  bring  the  proof,  when  Mr.  Benton  and  the  great  "  Globe"  itsefl 
p  have  confessed  it — have  themselves  brought  the  charge.     The  Beaufort,  Kdgfield,  Barnwel 
[ -  Sumter,  St.  Helena,  and  other  resolutions  reported  to  us  from  South  Carolina,  and  paraded  iai 
[-  the  Globe,  item  by  item,  smelling  so  rankly,  so  foully  of  treason,  and  so  interpreted  by! 
['  the  Globe  itself,  are  enough  to  settle  the  question  o{  fact.     Mr  Benton  and  the  Globe  knew,! 
K  that  the  people  of  this  country  were  not  ready  to  be  precipitated  over  such  a  precipice,  intoj 
[.  the  abyss  below.     They  knew,  that  the  Polk  and  Dallas  Ticket  had  been  made  up  by  thesej 
l*  conspirators ;  that  the  South  Carolina  Delegation  did  not  comi?  into  the  Convention  at  Balti-. 
[•  more,  till  this  nomination  was  made:  and  that  when  they  did  « «.>me,  they  were  received  wit" 
r  most  tumultuous  and  deafening  shouts  of  applause,  in  symjriihy  of  a  common  triumpjB 
■••Mr.  Benton  and  the  Globe  knew,  that  the  conspiracy  was  hat*  hj»d,  when  they  saw  it  strut 
I   ting  abroad,  and  proclaiming  its  designs.     Feeling  for  the  safety  of  a  common  cause,  and  no| 
p' being  able  to  conceal  the  facts,  they  confessed  them,  put  their  finger  upon  them,  and  sprui 
l-'to  the  rescue  of  Polk  and  Dallas,  from  such  imminent  peril — ha  too  late.     A  Southern  Coi 
I    -vention  of  the  Conspirators  was  already  proposed  at  Nashville,  Tennessee  !    It  may  be  stoi 
\'  ped — quite  probable — but  it  was  ^roposcrf — and  proposed  at  N.vsuvilt.e!     We  .aonor 
f-  Benton  and  the  Globe  for  the  honest  warning  they  have  given  to  the  country 

f:  §  14.     The  Debts  of  Texas 

I-       If  they  do  not  themselves  know  what  they  are,  how  can  anybody  else  know  ?     They  have] 
V'.  sold  land  scrip,  and  borrowed  money  wherever  they  could  at  ten  per  cent,  but  can  render  n< 
I i-  reliable  account.     We  can  easily  see  by  the  evidence  of  their  own  history,  debiting  the  Stat 
\\ioT  the  lands  acknowledged  to  be  sold,  and  adding  to  that  some  of  their  earliest  loans,  howl 
XL^eyh^^GWseA  M'p  seventy-seven  millioiis  of  dollars.     Whether  the   unascertained  actual  debts] 
•    are  seventy -seven,  or  fifty,  or  twenty  millions  more,  it  is  impossible  to  say.     The  Texan  Conn»j 
missioncr,  who  treated  with  Mr.  Tyler,  said,  he  believed  the  debts  were  not  more  than 
millions ;  but  Mr,  Tyler  was  generous  enough  to  assume  ten  millions.     Whether  this  gratuityJ 
of  five  millions  was  to  be  distributed  among  those  who  helped  Mr.  Tyler,  in  the  matter  of  thisj 
treaty,  we  are  not  informed.     Any  how,  the   Texan   functionaries   could  easily  run  up  tl 
debt  from  five  to  ten  millions,  before  the  settlement.     Mr.  Clay,  in  his  Raleigh  letter,  supposeij 
the  debts  may  be  thirteen  millions.     Since  that  time,  in  about  two  months,  they  have  mounM 
ed  up  to  twenty-two  millions,  by  the  transpiring  of  new  evidence.     Growing  at  this  rate  of  foul 
and  a  half  millions  a  month,  they  would  be  seventy-eight  millions  at  the  end  of  twelve  month»1 
more.     No  doubt,  if  we  were  to  take  Texas,  as  a  man  does  his  wife,  "for  better  for  worse,"! 
we  should  have  a  prodigious  draft  on  our  treasury,  especially  when  we  consider  what  a  finej 
opportunity  there  would  be  to  forge  evidences  of  debt.     We  should  hope,  in  such  a  case,  thj 
there  are  no  rogues  in  Texas,  and  that  they  have  been  grievously  slandered  in  the  naught 
words  thai  have  been  said  about  them.     At  best  we  must  conclude,  that  the  amount  of  thrfl] 
debts  of  Texas  is  very  uncertain.     It  is  pretty  generally  understood,  that  all  their  valuably] 
lands  are  well  shingled  over  with  titles.     No  wonder  that  the  holders  of  Texas  bonds  should] 
desire  to  find  a  pay-master  in  the  United  States,  or  that  the   owners  of  Texas  land  6crij>j 
should  exert  themselves  to  give  a  value  to  it  by  "  immediate  annexation."     One  thing  is  ce^f 
tain,  that  in  buying  Texas,  we  buy  all  her  debts. 


§  15.   The  Menaces  of  Texas. 

When  General  Hunt,  the  Texan  Minister,  applied  to  our  Government  for  annexation,  in 
1837,  he  said  to  Mr.  Forsyth,  "  The  under.sigtiod  will  not  conceal  from  the  Honorable,  the 
Secretary  of  State,  the  apjn-ehension  that  any  delay  in  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  annex- 
ation, may  be  fatal  to  its  ultimate  accomplishment."  And  then  he  goes  on  to  speak  of  the 
probability,  in  case  of  Ijeing  refused,  that  Texas  will  form  connexions  with  European  powers, 
prtjudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States.  To  which  Mr  Forsyth,  with  exemplary 
uignity,  replies,  "  In  that  case,  this  Government  would  be  consoled  by  a  consciousness  of  the 
rectitude  of  its  intentions,  and  the  certainty  that,  although  the  hazard  of  transient  losses 
may  be  incurnnl  by  a  rigid  adherence  to  just  principles,  no  lasting  prosperity  can  be  secured 
when  they  are  disregardfvl."  This  was  indeed  princely  conduct.  It  was  more  than  that:  It 
mounts  to  the  dignity  of  Christian  principle,  and  was  a  just  rebuke.  From  that  time  to  this, 
we  have  been  menaced  in  the  same  way,  directly  or  indirectly;  and  Mr.  Tyler  tells  us  "«m>u> 
All  these  menaces  are  answered  by  Mr.  Forsyth.  Texas,  and  all  concerned, 
142 


#  15 

should  know,  that  we  are  not  to  be  brow-beaten  into  a  breach  of  faith  and  a  violation  of  th« 
law  of  nations  for  fear  of  such  conseciuences.  Great  Britain  has  t^iven  us  her  word  of  honor 
— which  Mr.  Benton  savs,  "  is  enouii;h  for  me" — that  she  will  neither  ofl'end  nor  injure  us  by 
forming  connexions  of  this  kind.  Respect  for  the  political,  social,  and  commercial  rights  of 
parties  in  such  juxta-position,is  a  recognized  principle  of  the  law  of  nations;  and,  il'  Texaa 
18  disposed  to  be  singular,  we  may  be  consoled,  as  Mr.  Forsyth  says,  for  having  done  right. 
The  truth  is,  Texas  cannot  do  wrong  in  such  a  matter,  if  she  would,  because  she  can  mid 
no  iiviropean  power  that  would  be  party  to  il.  In  the  last  resort,  "  if  necessary,"  as  Mr, 
Clay  says,  "  we  could  appeal  to  arms,"  rather  than  tarnish  our  honor,  or  have  our  right* 
trampled  on. 

§  16.  Assumption  of  State  Debts. 

It  is  pretty  manifest,  that  the  "Lone  Star"  would  be  slow  in  moving  towards  our  consteHa- 
tion,  to  have  her  glory  merged  in  our  beams,  if  she  were  not  in  peril  of  being  blotted  from  the 
firmament.  She  modestly  asks  us  to  adopt  her  war,  and  pay  her  debts,  as  the  condition  of 
being  snugly  packed  in  our  society.  Texas  being,  as  Mr.  iJpsnur  said  to  Mr,  Muiphy,  "per- 
secuted by  an  unrelenting  enemy"  (that  is,  being  in  Mr.  Walker's  state  of  "  profound  peace"), 
and,  as  Mr.  Tyler  says,  "  in  almost  hopeless  exhaustion,"  it  is  not  bo  much  a  wonder  she* 
should  be  willing  to  have  us  take  her  war  off  her  hands;  nor  could  she  naturally  object, 
that  we  should  take  her  debts  too.  Not  to  speak  of  the  expenses  of  the  war,  is  it  right  that 
the  States  of  this  Union,  about  half  of  which  are  already  in  debt  on  their  own  account  about 
iu}0  hundred  millions  in  the  aggregate,  should  be  obliged  to  add  to  their  hiwAcns  fifty  or  even 
tto€7iti/ millions,  to  pay  the  debts  of  Texas,  as  a  compliment  to  her  condescension  in  taking 
rank  with  them,  that  she  may  come  in  scot  free,  and  not  be  hereafter  vexed  or  trammelled 
with  debt?  The  indebted  States  have  never  asked  such  a  favor;  they  do  not  expect  it ;  no 
man  or  party  has  asked  it  for  them ;  they  would  not  take  it  because  they  believe  it  is  uncon- 
stitutional. All  parties  agree  that  it  is  unconstitutional.  It  is  singular  that  this  hitherto 
insuperable  difficulty  of  assumption,  should  be  so  suddenly  and  so  easily  got  over  to  the  tune  of 
tens  or  scores  of  millions,  when  a  foreign  state  wants  the  benetitof  it!  The  trick  of  saying 
she  is  not  a  State  of  the  Union,  but  only  in  the  process  of  becoming  one,  will  hardly  do.  It 
will  be  the  most  natural  thing  intiie  world,  for  the  indebted  States  to  say,  "  Well,  gentlemen, 
pay  our  debts  too,  and  vj^  will  think  of  it."  And  the  unindebted  States  must  have  their  share 
of  the  bonus.  How  is  it  possible  to  avoid  this  universal  assumption — this  great  charily  ?  Admit- 
ting that  Texas  is  a  prodigal  son,  who  has  spent  all  "with  harlots  and  in  riotous  living,"  and 
that  it  is  fit  to  rejoice  over  his  return,  ragged  and  miserable  though  he  be,  there  is  no 
good  reason  why  he  should  be  exalted  over  the  heads  of  the  rest  of  the  family,  who  have  serv- 
ed from  the  beginning  in  contributing  to  the  common  weal,  and  in  creating  this  ability  to 
assume  the  debts  of  others. 

§  17.  The  Union— Nullificaticm. 

When  Mr.  Senator  McDuffie  said  in  his  message  as  Governor  of  Georgia,  in  1836,  "  If  we 
admit  Texas  into  our  Union,  while  iilexico  is  still  waging  war  with  that  province,  Avith  a 
view  to"  (re-)  "establish  her  supremacy  over  it,  we  shall  by  the  veiij  act  itself,  make  ourselves  a 
party  to  the  war,^^  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  he  acted  in  good  fealty  to  this  great  Confederacy. 
It  was  a  genuine  spark  of  the  virtue  of  "  Old  '76,"  and  in  harmony  with  his  oath  of  alle- 
giance to  the  Federal  Coostitution.  But  when,  in  the  early  part  of  the  first  session  of  the 
28th  (present)  Congress,  he  presented  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  his  project  of  ^Ar« 
Confederacies,  and  attempted  to  show  the  advantages  that  would  result  from  the  consumma- 
tion of  such  a  plan,  there  was  something  startling  to  the  feelings  of  that  body.  As  an  inge- 
nious hypothesis,  it  might  be  innocent;  but  the  time  and  the  place  did  not  seem  to  be  most 
suitable.  The  Hon.  George  Kvans,  of  Maine,  in  noticing  this,  was  constrained,  in  common 
charity,  occasionally  to  throw  in  some  such  remarks  as  this : — "  I  presume  the  honorable 
Senator  was  not  serious.^'  But  subsequent  events  have  cast  light  on  the  inception  of  that 
project.  It  would  seem  that  Mr,  McDuffie,  and  many  others  with  him,  are  scriwis,  and  that 
Mr.  Van  Buren  was  set  aside  at  the  Baltimore  convention,  and  Mr,  Polk  put  forward,  as  a 
part  of  apian  to  dissolve  the  Union,  and  erect  a  Southern  Confederacy!  We  have  already 
noticed  that  Mr  Benton  and  the  Globe  have  considered  the  developments  sufficient  to  war- 
rant a  recognition  of  the /ad  of  such  a  conspiracy,  and  to  bring  the  charge.  They  did  it  so 
promptly,  to  save  Messrs,  Polk  and  Dallas  from  being  involved  in  the  responsibility.  How 
far  these  candidates  are  cognizant  of  such  designs,  it  is  impossible  to  say  ;  but  that  they  were 
nominated  to  carry  them  out,  or  to  permit  them  to  be  carried  out,  if  occasion  should  require, 
there  cannot  be  a  doubt.     They  are  the  m^  of  those  conspirators,  put  forward  as  tools. 

The  Spectator,  Mr,  Calhoun's  organ  at  the  city  of  Washington,  pluming  the  conspiracy 
on  this  grejit  achievement,  says : — "  Never  was  there  a  more  remarkable  proof  of  her  power, 

143 


16 

« 
when  xmited'*  ^tlie  power  of  the  South),  "than  in  controlling  the  nomination  of  that  Conven- 
tion.    Sue  made  one  hrave  sally,  and  swept  all  opposition  before  her.     Texas  defeated  Mr.  Van 
Bwen?^    The  Charleston  Mercury,  another  Calhoun  organ,  says,  "Mr.  Polk's  views  on  the 
Tariff,  the  Bank,  arid  the  all-absorbing  question  of  Texas,  are  Southern  to  the  back  bone." 

It  may  be  supposed  we  have  said  enough  to  show — indeed  it  should  be  deemed  quite  un- 
necessary to  say — that  this  Union,  as  it  now  is,  under  the  shadow  of  the  Constitution,  is  a 
glorious  republican  fabric.  We  do  not  say,  that  it  cannot,  or  ought  not  to  be,  at  a  proper 
time,  enlarged  by  the  annexation  of  Texas.  Personally,  we  have  been,  and  still  are  disposed 
to  tliink  favorably  of  such  an  acquisition,  if  it  can  be  made  harmoniously,  and  without  preju- 
dice to  the  social,  commercial,  or  political  interests  of  the  Union  as  it  now  is.  But  it 
**  Texas  or  disunion'^  is  now  to  be  forced  upon  the  country,  per  fas  aut  nefas,  vi  et  armis, 
without  regard  to  consequences,  we  pray  God,  that  the  projectors  of  this  rash  scheme  may 
be  disappointed.  Of  this  glorious  Union,  we  say,  let  it  not  be  assailed  by  rude  hands. 
Esto  perpetitor-LET  IT  NEVER  PERISH!  WO  TO  THEM  WHO  WOULD  DE- 
STROY  IT! 

§  18.   A  "  Swell  Mob.'' 

Anybody  who  has  been  at  St.  Bartholomew's  Fair,  London,  or  to  any  other  similar  freat 
assemblage  of  that  metropolis  of  the  British  Empire,  will  have  chanced,  in  all  probability, 
to  know  what  a  "  swell  mob'^  i|,  For  example : — the  pick-pockets  prowl  about  in  squads 
among  the  thrones,  and*  all  of  a  sudden  a  "  swcW^  is  felt,  and  a  rush  made.  You  can't  tell  what 
it  is,  nor  what  it  is  for,  but  you  are  borne  onw^ard  because  you  can't  help  moving  with  the 
^tioell."  By  the  stretching  of  necks  all  arounfi  you,  it  would  seem  there  is  something  ahead 
which  all  are  anxious  to  see,  and  you  also  strdtch  your  neck,  and  with  all  the  rest  ask,— 
What  is  it?  The  rogues  have  diverted  your  attention  from  yourself  and  your  pockets,  and 
you  do  not  perhaps  know,  till  you  have  got  to  your  lodgings,  that  vou  are  robbed !  The 
^  swell  mob^^  had  so  effectually  blinded  your  eyes,  that  they  had  the  best  possible  chance,  with- 
out your  suspecting,  at  the  moment,  what  they  were  at;  and  so  you  have  lost  all  there  wai 
in  your  pockets,  and  they  have  got  the  booty. 

Now,  this  "immediate  annexation"  movement  is  a  political  ^^ swell mob^^  got  up  by  roguei 
to  make  or  mend  their  fortunes  by  it.  The  old  issues  of  Tariff,  Currency,  Land  Distribu- 
tion, Retrenchment,  and  such  like,  on  which  the  people  have  made  up  their  minds,  and  are 
prepared  to  act,  and  act  right — these  must  aU  be  thrust  aside,  because  there  is  no  profit  in 
them  for  rogues,  and  an  ignis  fatuus  is  held  up  and  kept  dancing  bewre  the  public  eye,  till  the 
people  can  see  and  think  of  nothing  else.  Look!  beliold!  it  is  Texas,  away  off  in  a  bog  yon- 
der!    Who  hears  of  or  who  sees  anything  but  Texas  ? 

We  had  never  heard  much  about  Texas  bfefore :  but  Texas  is  all — everything  now.  All  othei 
questions — all  other  issues  most  important  to  the  country,  and  for  which  the  nation  has  been 
struggling  for  a  quarter  of  a  century,  are  forced  into  the  back  ground,  just  at  the  moment  when 
all  was  about  to  be  aecided  right — (no  doubt  it  will  yet  be  so  decided),  and  a  ^'-  swell  mob^ 
rushes  upon  the  stage,  to  pick  the  people's  pockets !  You  don't  exactly  know  what  the  mat 
ter  is — but  there  is  something  away  ahead  yonder — what  is  it  ?  It  is  Texas.  The  people 
stretch  their  necks  to  see  what  this  Texas  is,  and  while  they  are  intent  on  the  unseen  object, 
the  hands  of  a  gang  of  rogues  are  in  their  pockets  ! 

It  will  be  seen  by  every  one,  that  this  Texas  Annexation  movement  is  nothing  but  a 
"swell  mqb;"  and  if  so,  it  is  no  less  certain,  that  it  is  got  up  by  rogues.  One  laughs — ^he 
may  as  well  lau2:h  as  cry — when  he  finds,  how  slick  he  has  been  robbed  by  a  "  swell  mob." 
He  laughs  at  their  dexterity,  and  at  his  own  simplicity.  He  was  as  innocent  as  could  be, 
when  they  were  rushing  on  him,  and  rushing  past  him,  and  seeming  to  be  after  something 
ahead,  and  begging  his  pardon  for  running  against  him,  or  pushing  him  down,  while  he  hino- 
self  was  as  anxious  as  they  appeared  to  be,  to  see  what  in  the  world  all  this  fuss  could  be 
about !  Lo !  and  behold !  when  it  was  all  over,  it  was  all  nothing !  But  when  he  gets  home 
hr  ^-  '■  \'-  has  lost  his  pocket  book!  Who  wouldn't  laugh  at  such  an  ingenious  cheat, 
h  dupe?     It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  the  people  of  this  country  will  understand 

th      I .  swell  mob,"  before  it  is  too  late  ;  and  that,  instead  of  being  pushed  down  and 

robbed,  they  will  rush  upon  the  horde  of  thieves,  and  throw  them  into  the  ditch.  The  rogue* 
are  of  three  classes.  1.  Theovyners  of  Texas  scrip  and  land  claims.  2.  The  political  stock-' 
iobbers.  And  3.  The  Nullifiers.  Captain  Tyler  stole  the  thunder  from  the  first  class;  the 
Locos  stole  it  from  the  Captain ;  and  everybody  sees  the  feathei  in  the  caip  of  the  NuUifien^ 

144 


^ 


